This doesn't make sense to me. The competitiveness of the small makets depends on the salary cap. What they are really discussing is the percentage of the revenues that goes to the players. The rest is all smoke.

BTW, I thought that capitalists like you don't like intervention. I mean, if Memphis can't compete with LA, well, maybe they shouldn't have an NBA team. That's the capitalist logic. But it seems that capitalism is only an excuse to exploit the poor. When a NBA team or a bank needs help, they have that help. (sorry, I just wanted to write this)

Why did you label me as a capitalist? Clearly, from what I said previously, I take an anti-capitalism standpoint in this regard. In any league you will have small market teams that can't afford to go 40-50 million over the cap and pay an extra 40-50 million dollars in luxury taxes. And of course, you will have larger markets like LA, Dallas and Boston who can spend that money comfortably and still be profitable while winning championships.

It's really not fair for teams like Memphis, Milwaukee, New Orleans, Indiana etc.. to compete against these teams because they obviously can't afford to pay players that much and pay the extra luxury tax because of the obvious issues that come with being a small market team.

If you are going to have 30 teams in the league it has to be an equal playing field, if not, there needs to be some changes. This is precisely why David Stern locked out the first two weeks of the season and likely plenty more.